UPDATE BELOW — 2:25 CST (“old” news?)

As Barack Obama Dazzles The Middle East, Some Say Iraqi Leaders Are Gambling It All On An Obama Presidency

The New York Sun is reporting Nuri Maliki and his henchmen are basically, dazzled by Barack Obama’s committment to ending the “Big Oil And Nation Buildin’ Bidness” of President Bush and his handler, Dick “Shotgun” Cheney and therefore, is destined to emerge victorious over Senator “Panama” John McCain in November. While I feel this is true, the Sun’s Eli Lake brings up a great point:

“… It was a move aimed at ingratiating the Shiite ruling majority in Baghdad with the man they expect to win the November presidential election, American and Iraqi officials said. If it works, it could be a stroke of brilliance, putting Mr. Obama in debt to the Iraqi leader for saving what could have been a disastrous trip to Iraq and defusing what could have been a troubling campaign issue. It could also backfire if a President McCain gets the idea that the Iraqi government is betraying the American politician who, after President Bush, has risked the most on a successful Iraq. …”

Risky? INDEED. With RealClearPolitics‘ polling average hovering just under 5% in favor of Obama at this time combined with Señor McCain’s well-documented flair for blowing his top and throwing temper tantrums (hey — it’s okay, Senator — I’ve got PTSD, too — no shame in that), the “Shock And Awe” of the Bush-Cheney gang might just look like child’s play compared to the type of campaign a torqued off new “President McCain” (shudder) could launch upon Baghdad.

Another interesting “snip” from Lake’s piece in regards to the supposed “flip-flop” by Maliki on his complete agreement with Barack Obama’s “16 month timetable” proposal. He puts it like this:

“..After the interview was first published on the Internet, the White House and the American embassy in Baghdad sought clarification from Mr. Maliki. …”

Interesting way to put it, Mr. Lake. I guess we both took a look at the same chain of events following the “Iraq For Obama” episode and saw them completely differently. I saw it as major “damage control” by the White House, Mr. Lake saw it as “asking for clarification”. Hmm. Interesting.

The Washington Post, of course, jumps into the “Iraq For Obama” fray as well, with Dan Balz “reporting”. My favorite “snip” from his piece:

“… Obama’s opposition to the troop “surge” that has helped quell violence and U.S. casualties — and that McCain vociferously supported — leaves plenty of room for further questions about his judgment at that moment. …”

Again, the BIAS. No, this isn’t an Op-Ed, folks, it’s a supposed, “fair and balanced report” from a Mainstream Media outlet. Let’s look at the OBVIOUS rebuttal to the above statement, this ALSO from an Old Media outlet, The Oregonian (Oregon Live), but this one in the form of an actual, loud and proud “opinion piece” written by a “Jeff Slaughter”:

“… John McCain chastised Barack Obama for stating his Iraq and Afghanistan policy before he went on his trip to the Middle East. How does McCain square this with his own vote for the Iraq war?

He voted to send our young men and women to war without even getting any of the facts for himself about supposed weapons of mass destruction or Iraqi ties with any terrorist organizations. …”

AMEN, and well said, my fellow American Citizen. The Truth with a capital “T” — at least that particular “snip”. Don’t forget all of the Democrats who voted for the war though. Oh, and Barry O-Bomber wasn’t one of them — he was one of the very FEW on either side of the aisle who saw this quagmire long before any of them, and quite honestly, even I saw it coming. While this isn’t a “GTL endorsement” of Barry for prez, it IS worthy of note and a few moments of thought, is it not? How much “spin” can one put in the facts — the REAL facts of the matter?

Last but not least, how about that ole’ “Surge” and has it really worked? I suppose if your definition of “working” means dumping nine-hundred-plus dead American bodies (Source: Think Progress — and that was back in March) into dumpsters, incinerators or buried under the ground over Iraq’s oil fields and the Bush-Cheney-Halliburton-KBR “Big Oil And Nation Buildin’ Bidness” while thousand and thousands of grieving American widows, widowers, children, parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, and beloved friends struggle to survive from day-to-day is your definition of “success“, then yep — ole’ Barry O-Bomber was WRONG. YOU decide.

The right-leaning Politico has seemingly jumped on their “hero”, John McCain (Et Tu Politico? Then fall, Caeasar!):

McCain gaffes pile up; critics pile on

By MIKE ALLEN & JIM VANDEHEI

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “Iraq” on Monday when he apparently meant “Afghanistan”, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.

Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken “Somalia” for “Sudan,” and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Ironically, the errors have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise: foreign affairs.

McCain will turn 72 the day after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts his party’s nomination for president at the age of 47, calling new attention to the sensitive issue of McCain’s advanced age three days before the start of his own convention. …”

(Snip!)

“… McCain’s mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?

Voters, thinking about their own relatives, can be expected to scrutinize McCain’s debate performances for signs of slippage.

Every voter has a parent, grandparent or a friend whose mental acuity declined as they grew older. …”

I know, I know, it’s “politically incorrect” and “insensitive” to talk about Barry Obama’s big ears and Señor McCain’s fairly old age these days. In fact, while the “ears” thing is COMPLETELY irrelevant, the “age” thing might be completely relevant. Never in my personal memory has a presidential candidate’s pick for his vice presidential running mate been as important as it is today for Senator McCain.

I’m just sayin’…

And — by the way — here’s what a couple of other bloggers are saying about it (please read them in their entirety — good stuff):

Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic:

“Mike Allen and Jim Van deHei finally take note of McCain’s frequent gaffes. Interestingly, they view his proclivity for misstatements primarily through the lens of age — perhaps McCain’s getting old and losing his grip. To me, though, if take a broader look I think it’s just a campaign that’s not doing a good job of briefing people. …”

Drudge Retort (First commentator — lively discussion as always):

“… Dementia sucks, doesn’t it… ? …”

Democrat Taylor Marsh:

“… Is McCain’s age an issue, considering he keeps stumbling over foreign policy issues that he should know?

Perhaps it’s something else.Just maybe John McCain’s comparison to George W. Bush has more to do with yet another Republican seeking the highest office who is all image, with little gray matter to match. The fact is that John McCain finished near the bottom of his class. But people can be intelligent, even astute, without a college degree. On the other hand, some people get by on image alone. …”

Liberal Values:

“… While seeing documentation of every gaffe has become increasingly common in the You Tube era, in McCain’s case they tend to be far more frequent, and are often concentrated on foreign affairs, which McCain claims to be an area of expertise. …”

The Carpetbagger Report:

“… I’ve been listening pretty closely to McCain for quite a while, and it seems to me the bizarre things that he says fall into one of five categories:

1) A gaffe — McCain meant to say one thing, but he accidentally said something else.

2) Confusion — McCain didn’t quite know what he meant, but he talked about the subject anyway.

3) Flip-flopping — McCain knew what he meant, it’s just the opposite of what he used to mean.

4) Lying — McCain knew the truth, but chose to go in a different direction.

5) Attempted humor — McCain’s sense of comedy is consistently odd. …”

***

You Might Enjoy These Related Posts Also:

• Was John McCain “Scurrilous” Toward Barack Obama? Time Magazine’s Joe Klein Says “INDEED”…
• Iraqi PM al-Maliki Now [ahem...] “Disputes” Spiegel Report
• NOT The “Shocker” Most Americans Would Believe: Barack Obama Receives Six Times MORE In Campaign Contributions Than Panama John McCain Does From Deployed U.S. Troops
• The Right Goes NUTS Over The New York Times’ Refusal To Run John McCain’s Proposed Rebuttal -Slash- Op-Ed Counterpoint To Barack Obama’s Recently Published Piece